View Single Post
11-15-2012, 07:37 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
If anyone - Czech or otherwise - is using adjusted stats as the alpha/omega of an argument, that's a problem.
That's where we disagree then. It depends on the amount and nature of data available, but it seems the other choices are:

The Eye Test- Arguing about what one thinks one remembers one's eyes seeing over (in most cases) a limited sample. Sure seems like a lot of room for bias, subjectivity, etc. Esp. difficult to reach consensus with others when there is initial disagreement.

Rankings amongst peers- From what I've seen, mostly or completely ignores the changing quality of peer talent, which has changed dramatically over time.

Awards- Same failure to recognize changing peer talent, but add in the bias and subjectivity of some oft-ignorant sportswriters.

Cups/Playoffs- Even those who use adjusted stats effectively often forget that playoff stats were affected in mostly very similar ways that effected regular season scoring. The role of team quality, % teams in playoffs, league size & parity, etc. are also often ignored by many or not fully appreciated.

They all can be used for evaluation. I don't tell anyone else what to use or that it's "wrong" when context is properly considered. However, there's a reverence, esp. for O6 players, that seems to prevent the realization that they were big fish in a much smaller pond... when it's a lot easier to be one of the big fish. Smaller population... no Euros/Russians to deal with... no huge leagues where lesser players can have fluke big seasons instead of being relegated to the third line on a powerhouse. I see respected posters claiming Howie Morenz should be highly ranked based on being a big fish in a much, much smaller pond... an ancient poll... and some yearly polls of "the usual suspected experts"... and I'm supposed to bow to that and agree that preferring objective evidence is "wrong." I can't see that happening.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote